God Does Exist
75There was this survey that I took which only has one question: Do you believe in God?
What's
so interesting about this survey is not the question itself, for I am a
firm believer in God. It was the comments and reactions of some of the
people who took the survey that really caught my attention and interest.
There
was this particular man who does not believe in God. He went on to
explain his position. He said that God was just invented by people of
ancient times to provide answers for the things that they cannot
explain or comprehend.People during those times, according to him, were
still ignorant thus they feel the need to create a super being to whom
they can attribute everything that is beyond the grasps of their
ignorance.
God does not exist, he said, specially in this age and
time. He called the present times as the age of enlightenment where
science, learning and knowledge rules. Where Gods very existence can
now be explained in scientific and knowledgeable terms.
I was in a
state of disbelief when I read his explanation. I can't understand how
some people can still deny that there is indeed a Higher Being out
there. I guess it is true that the greatest trick the Devil ever did
was to make people believe that he (the Devil) does not exist! A lot of
people really believe that we are in an age of enlightenment where
science is the new God, Heck, they now have their own religion,
Scientology! Now, how can they say that they don't believe in God when
they have a religion? It's true that it's not the God that most of us
have come to know, but in their own distorted way of thinking, they
themselves have created a new God that conforms to their beliefs.
The age of enlightenment is how they define our era. We are now
suppose to know everything and have the answers to any problems. Is
this really the case? Are we now so
all-knowing that we have become a Godless race?
If you ask me, this is not the age of enlightenment. This era, at least for me, is our own version of the dark ages. It is even more darker than the original one! Our technology is so advance yet our planet is dying. Our knowledge is so vast and extensive yet we are still dogged by problems that defy solutions. We keep on discovering new and more useful things yet we are stupified by something as simple as a flu virus or bacteria. We have managed to extend our lifespan in general yet newer and more deadlier diseases are cropping up and we can't find any cure. The world has become a smaller place thanks to the internet and other communication devices that makes us communicate almost instantly anytime, anywhere yet more and more of our children are turning to drugs and crimes. Everything that we have done that are suppose to make this world a better place has in fact created the opposite.
This is the ultimate hypocrisy of those who don't believe in God
yet believes in the power of science and technology. Science is
supposed to be exact. It does not rely on mere chance or coincidence.
It sets aside everything that cannot be measured, quantified, probed or
proven. However, the world and everything that is in it was created,
according to science, through a "big bang" that occurred at the beginning
of time. Out of the chaos of that unimaginable destruction came
about our world which eventually evolved into what it is today.
Now sit back and let the thought sink in for the moment. Visualize
the kind of explosion that they have been harping about. It's so
massive that it is beyond comprehension. Can you just imagine the
chances of all the necessary "ingredients" coming all together after
that staggering big bang to form the universe and this world and
everything in it? We must be one hell of a special race! We somehow
manage to come into existence on a stroke of luck! Now chalk one up for
those who believe in science and denies that thare is indeed a God.
That is why I cannot accept that this era is the new age of
enlightenment.
We are at an all time high in our ability to destroy this planet
and kill each other. We are at an all time high in our drug addiction,
criminality and sexual debauchery. We are at an all time high in our
ability to pollute this planet, deplete the ozone layer and bring forth
global warming.We are at an all time high in the number of families and
marriages that are falling apart.
Science and technology has brought
us to where we are right now. The new age of enlightenment has dawned
upon us. More and more, people are embracing the light of science and
knowledge to the point of forgetting everything else. The way I see it,
we are not in an age of enlightenment. This is not our renaissance or
our golden age. We are back to the dark ages of medieval times. What
scares me is that this present dark age was not brought about by
innocence or ignorance. In our pursuit for knowledge, we have lost our
heart and our faith. This is the reason why despite of our advancement,
a dark and eerie pall of gloom has fallen over us and blinded our hearts
from seeing the truth.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Thank you Tina. It is deeply appreciated. I just hope that this world becomes a better place not through our advancement in knowledge but through the grace and love of God.
What an absolute load of garbage. To just point out your ignorance to other religions, Scientology has nothing to do with science, science is not a religion.
The human race came about because of luck? You obviously have no understanding of Natural Selection and Evolution, It is not a chance or luck event that creates it is a systematic change in the frequencies of alleles in populations down through the generations. And despite what you believe, we are not entering a dark age. Although america is still in the theocratic dark ages... You want the world to go back into the 'good old days' where faith was abundant as well as racism, homophobia and discrimination against woman? Wow, that really shows your moral attitude towards those issues...
Antony, please read carefully what scientology espouses and read carefully what I have written. I did not say that the human race came about by luck. That is what The the "Big Bang Theory" is suggesting.
Are you saying that racism, discrimination against women and homophobia does not exist today? In what world dou you live in? I'm quoting you on this one: "You want the world to go back into the 'good old days' where faith was abundant as well as racism, homophobia and discrimination against woman [sic]?" So according to what you said, those things no longer exists today because they only happened in "the gool old days". Try taking a leap of faith sometimes, it will do you good.
Scientology is based around humans having spirits it has nothing to do with science as a subject. Science is to do with empirical evidence, physical aspects of this universe. Science is not a religion ;) Religion is based on faith, and dismissal of every piece of evidence against that belief. Science on the other hand, is facts, and if something changes, then their view will change accordingly.
Of course they exist today. But in today's world, they are a frowned upon, it is illegal to discriminate, to attack and kill gay people for being gay, to refuse to give a woman a job based on her sex. What I'm trying to say about the "good old days" is that if you truelly believe that todays social problems of " drug addiction, criminality and sexual debauchery" as you say then what you have to look at, is what the world was like when countries had Religious leaders, and Religious leaders like the Pope had a lot of control. It was no better, in fact worse then today. My point was to say that today's social problems can not be explained through lack of faith.
Try taking a leap of faith? Faith is destined to cause problems, it separates people and causes labels of entire groups of people that we should not marry, talk to in fact we should take arms and attack their religion because ours is the one true one. Faith is what kills so many people not lack of faith ;) Why don't you not take a leap of faith, and instead look at whats real?
It's interesting what you said in regards to science and it's "Big Bang" theory: "Out of the chaos of that unimaginable destruction came about our world which eventually evolved into what it is today."
In secular education, we are taught that everything we see is a result of evolution and natural selection. This has entered into nearly every area of science, so that even the theories of the origin of the universe reflect this viewpoint. Supposedly everything started 6 billion years ago when there was a tremendous explosion, a “Big Bang.” Slowly energy began to come together, elements began to form, cells began to evolve, organisms began to unite, and eventually humankind came to be. But in reality, have we ever observed order coming from an explosion? Doesn’t an explosion result in destruction and chaos instead of design and order?
In September 11, 2001 the Twin Towers in New York City collapsed when terrorists flew airplanes into them. On the 1st of March 2008, the Navy launched a new class of warship incorporating 7.5 tons of steel savaged from the World Trade Center wreckage into its bow. The ship was christened the USS New York in honor of the state, the city, and the victims of 9/11 terrorist attack. Did the new ship just miraculously appear from the wreckage of these buildings? Was the ship created by the catastrophic damage on that fateful day? No, we recognize it took a great amount of research, design and energy to build the ship.
One of the known laws of physics is the “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” It states that things move from order to chaos. This is directly in opposition to evolution. According to this law, the universe is “winding down.” Stars decrease in temperature. Things slow down. If we were to wait long enough, everything would stop moving and the universe would be a uniform temperature. There is an exception to this law though. Things can’t move from chaos to order if there is an external power source introduced into a system.
Enter the One who is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers - all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER" (Colossians 1:15-16).
Hi there Gicky Soriano. I do not mean to offend, only to try and inform you of your lack of understanding.
The problem with your argument is that you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law is constantly thrown at evolution to try and show that evolution is a lie. Your argument of saying that order can not come from chaos is like in the twin towers is incorrect, because the twin towers were non-living objects. Evolution doesn't state that rocks get more complex through generations of reproducing rocks, of course it doesn't because thats a non-biological substance which can't reproduce and doesn't have DNA. To compare evolution like you have is completely irrelevant.
Firstly, Evolution does not follow the second law because it doesn't apply to evolution. The second law states "In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe." which basically means things go from order to chaos. In a closed system (very important). Evolution is not a closed system. Life on earth has energy continually 'pumped' through into the 'circle of life' through the sun etc. Which means that life on earth can indeed go from chaos to order, life CAN get more complex. Rather then stating the law then saying it debunks evolution, it may do your brain some justice to actually read what the law states and then read how it doesn't apply to evolution which there are many books about.
Despite choosing to ignore the evidence (which there is A LOT OF) evolution has been proved, it has been observed on the micro and macro scale.
Something for you to ponder, if everyone thought like you did and said 'god' as the answer to everything. Modern science would not exist. I'd like to think that someone so opposed to science would refuse modern medicine and all the technology that has come through science. However, i doubt you'd do that because it doesn't oppose the religion. Except for the fact that scientifically the theory of evolution has come about the same way all other science technology has.
And on a final note, if your going to start quoting from the bible and saying that its final proof for god's existence, then maybe i should start quoting from the bible as well? like where it says discrimination against woman is ok, that slavery is ok and so on...
antony,
You stated in your comment that my argument regarding the order from chaos example is incorrect, because the Twin Towers were non-living objects. "Evolution" according to you, "doesn't state that rocks get more complex through generations of reproducing rocks, of course it doesn't because thats a non-biological substance which can't reproduce and doesn't have DNA. To compare evolution like you have is completely irrelevant."
In a recent article entitled "Rocks evolve too, geologists claim," a landmark scientific study has unearthed data stating that there exists an obvious difference between Mineral evolution and Darwinian evolution. According to this report, "Minerals may not mutate, reproduce or compete like living organisms," but it was found that both variety and relative abundances of minerals have changed dramatically over more than 4.5 billion years of earth's history.
The key message in this newly released study "is how closely intertwined the mineral world is with life and biology. Human teeth - with their key ingredient of apatite - are vivid reminders that the 'seemingly static, inorganic' physical Earth should be viewed more like a 'living organism' underpinning the biosphere."
As matter or materials that formed the Earth "clumped" together and were subject to thermal pressures and other forces, the study notes that "the number of distinct minerals increased to about 250. In addition, rocks are formed by geological processes, that have natural cause and effect relationships which in turn obey the laws of nature. We must then ask, how the rock manifested itself, bypassing the known laws of physics which create rocks. Therefore, I beg to disagree, the shattered rocks from the Twin Towers stands as a testament against your argument that they are a non-biological substance.
Enter energy. One of the most difficult things to comprehend and reconcile in cosmology or evolution is how it comes to pass that the universe can get something out of nothing (ex nihilo); how it can go from not existing , to existing, how matter or energy can come into being from it's former non-existing state. For want of words, your belief is based on a 'free lunch' factor because exercising this luxury allows you a starting point upon which you hang your scientific explanations stemming from a universe that already exists. Yet there was no matter as we know it in the time leading up to the Big Bang, but there was a concentration of energy that began to expand at some point. As per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, after thinning and cooling, particles began to condense. The rest is history.
The question is, "Who or what ultimately created this pre-Big Bang energy in order for the universe to emerge from something out of nothing?" At this junction, it's obvious who I believe "clumped" the earth as well as the known universe together. My answer still stands, "In Christ ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER" (Colossians 1:15-16).
To be fair, I don't know nor will I pretend to know. I believe that one day we will all know, and in the interim period I have my own ideas, but at this time I'll have to admit that the more I know the more I don't know. If your belief system is based on a 'free lunch' factor, mine is based on a 'faith factor.' My faith-based system of belief assures me that the Creator was responsible for the creation event. On the other hand, systems like yours that don't involve a faith element are usually content to watch knowledge develop and deepen over time. The only difference is whether there was divine intervention. Concerning your position on evolution though, it also takes a great faith to believe what you believe.
Regarding your final note concerning the proof of God's existence, and the fact that maybe you should quote the bible, I am certainly up to the task in discussing these subjects. Before we enter into this lively discussion, be it gender discrimination or other discrepancies, by all means, state your case and we will observe how we can bring biblical order out of chaos and confusion. Or better still, I strongly suggest you write your arguments on a separate hub so that we can allow the rest of the hub community to interact with the subject. The reason being that I want to respect Pio Marcelo's subject at hand and I am most certain that the argument you present will go off tangent.
Unfortunately im a student and in the middle of my exams so this will be my last post ;)
They are two different types of evolution. Evolution in rocks, involves minerals etc, whereas in animals it involves Genes and dna etc. Other then supporting your answer, it again puts into question Genesis, how can rocks (minerals) evolve if the earth was supposed to be finished on the second day? How can you say something in the bible is true and some isn't. You either follow it or you don't.
Again i say, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution. Please don't use it as an argument ;)
"The only difference is whether there was divine intervention." Hardly, not believing in god or a divine allows you as you say to seek knowledge. Without knowledge humans would still be stuck in the dark ages. It does not take great faith to believe in evolution, or science. Faith is where you believe in something and ignore all evidence against your belief. My ideas on science continually change, they are developing as i understand and figure out new things. Which is the same for science, it will continue to change as new facts are discovered. And one doesn't have to have faith in facts, thats why they are facts and not imaginary ;)
I do not have a hub account, nor do intend on joining this site as i do not have the time. I thank you for this discussion, although i doubt i've changed anyone's minds, my point was initially and still is to point out to people when they say things that are completely false. Cheers.
antony,
First, I’m glad you admit there exists two types of evolution namely minerals and animals. Based on my Twin Towers illustration, the rocks may not mutate, but they do evolve. It’s interesting how you cut short the proof I presented and chose to conveniently trump the Genesis card. You are probably under the assumption that I take the account in Genesis 1 literally. You need to be aware that there exists no single doctrine of creation. The author’s intent in the first chapter of Genesis, in my estimation, is to teach theology rather than scientific truth. Is there a conflict between Genesis 1 and natural science? Well for one, they operate on different levels. I’ll spare you the details of my position in the creation account. It would be pointless to proof text my belief system as it is obvious that you do not hold to the Bible as the word of God.
Second, you remain adamant when I apply the second law of thermodynamics to evolution. You face a major flaw in your presentation. In fact, evolution flies in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed (as you emphasize), have a tendency to disorder (or “the least energetic state”). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
Third, you brought up the issue of divine intervention. I am assuming you raised this in light of the fact that your system of belief is based on a “free lunch” factor while mine is based of a “faith factor.” A second major flaw in your position is that you remain mum in regard to the question, "Who or what ultimately created this pre-Big Bang energy in order for the universe to emerge from something out of nothing?" Nevertheless, I’d like to resurrect your argument stating, “Life on earth has energy continually 'pumped' through into the 'circle of life' through the sun etc. Which means that life on earth can indeed go from chaos to order, life CAN get more complex." The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance – they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. Take a mousetrap for instance. If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker, A watch is too complex to “happen” by chance. Yet such living systems, as you pointed out in your comment, are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random – they simply had to be designed and created.
A final note before I let you go Antony. You need to pay closer attention to your attempt in getting people to take you seriously or see things your way. Word phrases that you employ throughout your comments, i.e., “what and absolute load of garbage, to just point out your ignorance, you obviously have no understanding, and it may do your brain some justice,” only goes to show that on the human level (not mineral or animal, mind you), your manner of argument can only breed a spirit of chaos rather than order within the Hub community. You would do well if you enter into the debate sans the improper insulting innuendos. After all, don’t we all share a common goal of wanting to bring order out of chaos? It's not simply a matter of wanting to change people's minds, it's allowing them to hear what the other schools of thought are saying. An open and thoughtful ongoing dialogue is always heathy. Hopefully, your approach in future discussions, should you choose to participate, will evolve in the right direction.
Given that you find yourself in the thick of your exams, it’s a pity that we cannot continue. You bid me “Cheers,” and I say, “God bless you.”
I couldn't help myself one last stab but it'll be short.
Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermod
To help confirm for you that the second law doesn't not apply to evolution.
The same applies for the watch (which raises the thought of who created the creator, which is a rather important question and the existence of god doesn't lie outside the reaches of science) and mouse trap examples of irreducibly complex organs or objects that cannot work if even just one part was missing. This has been discussed by much more experienced biologists (and scientists in general) then i, and has been refuted many, many times. Maybe rather then just typing the same old stuff again and again maybe try and find the evidence to support your claim the evolution doesn't happen? (even though it has been observed, as i said before, on the macro and micro level) The Flagellum Unspun was used as a prime example of irreducibly complex but has since been dismissed, the same goes for the human eye and so on..
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/art
I need to get back to study :) but finally, if the authors intent was to aim at the theological side, rather then the scientific side. At which place do you decide that it becomes science? How do you decide what God considers to be the truth and what needs to be taken truthfully or figuratively?
antony,
First, Wikipedia is defined as "a multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based mostly on anonymous contributors. Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles." This format perfectly caters to the way you process your belief system based on your previous comment: "My ideas on science continually change, they are developing as I understand and figure out new things. Which is the same for science, it will continue to change as new facts are discovered." In the end, people can pick and choose or even cut-and-paste whatever they want to believe (or in your case, what you are led to believe today or tomorrow). Your belief system is unstable as it is constantly in flux - it may even be changing as I write.
By the way, my reference to "the same old stuff" does not negate that because something is old it has ceased to serve its purpose. You have simply brought up biased scientific sources and conveniently copped-out with the claim that the irreducibly complex examples have been refuted or dismissed.
Second, I believe in a Creator behind the "intelligent design" before us. Unlike your ever-changing belief system, the Creator God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind (or ways). Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? What's interesting is that the Creator allows my finite mind to observe his ways, not from a macro or micro level, but from a personal level. In answer to your question, someone did dare to ask God "Who should I say that you are?" Like you, people today would ask him "who created the creator?" God's answer is the same then as it is now, "I AM WHO I AM." Popeye doesn’t have the patent on this phrase. This happens to be the Infinite Being’s answer to a finite human beings question. Go figure!
Third, you seem to be deeply committed in your belief that the real world is evolution. It’s a system that you not only trust in, but also attribute the progress in modern medicine and technology as well. And you say this with such conviction as though making out evolution to have a purpose: “Evolution is not a closed system. Life on earth has energy continually 'pumped' through into the 'circle of life' through the sun etc. Which means that life on earth can indeed go from chaos to order, life CAN get more complex.” If you are a staunch evolutionist, then please be honest with yourself and everyone else and abandon all this “circle of life’ purpose talk that you subtlety smuggle into your language when talking about the natural realm of cause and effect. If you insist on importing this kind of talk that fits your worldview you will see how ridiculous that world ends up being. You can’t hold to this because the world is obviously designed. Things obviously fit into ecosystems (or ‘closed systems’ as you would have us believe) with a particular purpose. They obviously have their place. Bodies are obviously artifacts. Teeth were made for chewing. Hands were made for holding. Brains were made for thinking. They just don’t happen to perform these functions because they accidentally formed that way through the forces of nature acting on mindless matter (per your example using life, earth, energy, sun, etc.). That, by the way, is the thing that gives human beings purpose. Not only are their bodies purposeful, but their lives are purposeful as well.
Why? Because there is an intelligent Creator who is personally behind everything. A Creator we see obviously, as Paul says in Romans 1:18-20: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
In response to your last question, the author’s intent in the first chapter of Genesis is to teach theology rather than scientific truth period. The Bible is replete with anomalies in nature that would boggle the scientific mind, like the sun standing still, the shadow moving backwards, the Red Sea parting, the resurrection of the dead, etc., but these miraculous feats are written, not to prove the Creator’s existence (much less against the evidence of science), but to reveal the love of an omnipotent Creator purposefully engaging his creation at will and delivering his people according to his promise.
Tina Irene says:
2 months ago
Hi, Pio Marcelo.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and, by the way, you sure summed the situation up in your last sentence!